As the FBI investigates the accusation that Judge Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault Christine Blasey Ford when in high school, maybe they can dig deeper into this little mystery that a Notre Dame Uni professor Margot Cleveland zeroes in a series of tweets:
Let me ask you something. If a woman came forward and said that she was sexually assaulted in the summer of 1982 when she was 15 by one boy, with a second in the room egging her on, and to corroborate her claim she pointed to small portions of notes from a therapist 1/2/ which said that she described a “rape attempt” in her LATE teens that involved 4 boys AND in her first text describing the attempted rape, the women said it happened in the mid-80s, what would you think? That the notes did NOT corroborate her account. But Ford has trickedeveryone into ignoring the differences in dates (82 is not MID-80s) and age (15 is not LATE-teens) and to assume that Ford was telling her therapist about the supposed Kavanaugh attempt. BUT in her handwritten note before the polygraph she crossed out “early” before 80s. WHY?
Brett Kavanaugh enjoys one of the most spotless reputations of anyone in American public life. He has been enthusiastically endorsed by those who have known him all his life–by girls he knew in high school and college, by judges he has served with, by professors and students and Harvard and Yale law schools, by judges who have worked with him, by his judicial clerks–most of whom have been women–by the American Bar Association, by sitting Supreme Court justices. In short, everyone who has ever known or dealt with Brett Kavanaugh endorses him.
I think that Judge Kavanaugh’s pristine reputation is one reason why the Democrats have unleashed against him a smear campaign unparalleled in American history. This is the message they are trying to send: If we can do this to the Boy Scout Brett Kavanaugh, we can do it to anyone. Are you thinking of serving in a Republican administration? Or accepting an appointment to the federal judiciary from a Republican president? Think twice, and then think again…
By smearing the ultimate Boy Scout, the Democrats signal that they are determined to go lower than anyone has ever gone in American history. They intend to deter normal people from serving in Republican administrations, or accepting appointments from Republican presidents, or, ultimately, from identifying themselves with the Republican party. Given that strategy, the fact that they are smearing a man of obviously sterling character on absurdly flimsy grounds is not a bug, it is a feature. The fact that the Democrats’ smears are so patently false is ultimately their main point.
The Democrats are telling us: Republicans, beware–if this can happen to Brett Kavanaugh, it can happen to anyone. You’d better go quietly and cede power to us.
This seems to indeed be the message and the lesson that many are drawing from this whole controversy, But I’m not sure whether that’s intentionally a part of the Democrat master plan. Kavanaugh would be the deciding vote on the Supreme Court, a conservative replacing a moderate to give the former a technical 5-4 majority that – should it be unanimous (which is of course never guaranteed) – can prevent the Court for a generation from being used as an instrument of progressive policy making and to wind back some of the previous left-wing judicial victories. Personally, I doubt very much whether this Supreme Court would actually repeal or even circumscribe Roe v Wade, but abortion being perhaps the most totemic issue for the American left, it will do absolutely anything it can to ensure this has no chance of happening. The sheer desperation and opportunism rather than Machiavellian foresight might account for the depth to which the Democrats will go to knock out Kavanaugh. But this does not make the situation any less unsavoury.